Homework SourseWhat is the riskutility test for product defectiveness Why d
Solution
a risk-utility standard in broad terms, we feared that our
formulation might invite courts to look more kindly on the proposition
that certain categories of products are sufficiently dangerous that it
would be negligent to distribute them in the first instance.
Besides lawyers who represent plaintiffs in products liability
litigation, who would have been delighted to see our Restatement project
endorse the idea that broad categories of inherently risky products might
be deemed defective even if no alternative designs could have reduced
the risks, two groups of American Law Institute constituents with
seemingly more objective, disinterested viewpoints supported
formulations that we believed might encourage courts to embrace
category liability
The risk-utility test, which is applicable to design defect allegations, asks the jury to consider whether the risks posed by a product design are outweighed by the utility of the design in accomplishing the uses or function of the product. Many cases which discuss the risk-utility test set forth a short list of factors which a jury can consider in reaching its determination, including the obviousness of the danger and the availability of a reasonable alternative design which would avoid such danger. The risk-utility test has no application to manufacturing defect claims.
Further to Dick’s comment, the consumer expectations test simply asks the jury to determine whether the product design functioned as safely as a reasonable consumer to expect. It gives the jury no objective criteria under which to reach its decision. There are Florida cases which discuss both the risk-utility test and the consumer expectations test in products cases. For that reason, the current Florida Standard Jury Instructions contain instructions addressing both tests, pending further development of Florida law.
Is one test preferred over the other by a defense lawyer? Plaintiff lawyer?
In most cases, the defense in a product liability test will prefer the risk-utility test. Virtually every product known to man carries with it some risk of harm. The risk-utility test allows the jury to weigh that risk and compare it to the utility or benefits of the design, utilizing some objective criteria. The consumer expectations test is much more subjective, and Florida case law recognizes that it may not work well in situations involving complex products for which an average consumer may not be able to form expectations in the first place.
How are juries prepared to understand the differences between the tests in product liability cases?
BudThe risk-utility test is easier for a lay jury to understand, because it gives jurors some factors to weigh in reaching their decision. Regardless of which test is used, it is the task of defense counsel to educate the jury in the aspects of the design which are implicated in the particular case. Starting with voire dire questioning through expert witness testimony, exhibits which depict and explain the design, and argument, if the defense counsel does a good job in explaining the design, and giving the jurors some level of expertise themselves concerning the product, the result is usually positive.
Why is the Florida Supreme Court now looking at changing its rules in regards to product liability jury instructions?
Dic The Florida Supreme Court Standard Jury Instructions Committee (Civil) has undertaken a complete revision of the standard jury instructions used in civil cases. Parts of this revision were submitted to the Supreme Court several months ago. The product liability instructions, which were more controversial, were only recently submitted, over a strong dissent from some Florida Bar members who felt that the revised instructions constituted a departure from, and unwarranted change in, Florida law. It was argued that the proposed revised instructions in many respects tilted the playing field in favor of plaintiffs, and deprived defendants in product cases of the benefit of legal protections which had been part of the law in Florida.
What is the potential impact to manufacturers if these jury instructions are changed?
Dic The current instructions will be changed in any event. The question is whether the Supreme Court of Florida, in reaching its decision concerning approval of the instructions, adopts the plaintiff-oriented changes submitted by the Committee majority, or sends the proposed instructions back to the Committee, hopefully with guidance to reach a more balanced set of product liability instructions. If the former result obtains, products liability cases will become more difficult to defend in Florida.
Is anything being done to keep these rules from changing?
Bud The Supreme Court of Florida recently requested further comment on several of the proposed products liability instructions, including proposed instruction 403.7, which addresses among other things the risk-utility and consumer expectations tests that we already discussed . In fact, Dick and an attorney from another Florida law firm have led the charge in the submission of a memorandum to the Court pointing out the deficiencies in the proposed instruction 403.7, as well as other proposed instructions, and appeared before the Court for oral argument. Other defense counsel across the state also submitted comments. Now we\'re just waiting for the Court to render its decision.
Additionally, the Restatement 3rd makes it clear that Consumer Expectation should apply to manufacturing defects as opposed to design defects. If an axle in a car was not manufactured to specifications and breaks causing an accident, consumer expectation would apply. Consumers do not expect an axle to break because it does not meet specs. That is a far cry from determining if a roof which was designed like just about any other roof was designed defectively which would invoke the risk utility test. It is a more complicated determination.
The economic framework that each society has — its laws, institutions, policies, etc. — results in different distributions of economic benefits and burdens across members of the society. These economic frameworks are the result of human political processes and they constantly change both across societies and within societies over time. The structure of these frameworks is important because the economic distributions resulting from them fundamentally affect people\'s lives. Arguments about which frameworks and/or resulting distributions are morally preferable constitute the topic of distributive justice. Principles of distributive justice are therefore best thought of as providing moral guidance for the political processes and structures that affect the distribution of economic benefits and burdens in societies.
This entry is structured in the following way. After outlining the scope of the entry and the role of distributive principles, the first relatively simple principle of distributive justice examined is Strict Egalitarianism, which calls for the allocation of equal material goods to all members of society. John Rawls\' alternative distributive principle, which he calls the Difference Principle, is examined next. The Difference Principle permits diverging from strict equality so long as the inequalities in question would make the least advantaged in society materially better off than they would be under strict equality. Some have thought that neither strict equality nor Rawls\' Difference Principle capture the important moral roles of luck and responsibility in economic life. The “Luck Egalitarianism” literature comprises varying attempts to design distributive principles that are appropriately sensitive to considerations of responsibility and luck in economic life. Desert-based principles similarly emphasize the moral roles of responsibility and luck but are distinct because they approach these factors through claims about what people deserve because of their work.
Advocates of welfare-based principles (of which utilitarianism is the most famous) do not believe the primary distributive concern should be material goods and services. They argue that material goods and services have no intrinsic value but are valuable only in so far as they increase welfare. Hence, they argue, distributive principles should be designed and assessed according to how they affect welfare, either its maximization or distribution. Advocates of libertarian principles, by contrast to each of the principles so far mentioned, generally criticize any distributive ideal that requires the pursuit of economic ‘patterns’, such as maximization or equality of welfare or of material goods. They argue that the pursuit of such patterns conflicts with the more important moral demands of liberty or self-ownership. Finally, feminist critiques of existing distributive principles note that they tend to ignore the particular circumstances of women, so feminists tend to argue for principles which are more sensitive to facts such as that women often have primary responsibility for child-rearing and on average, spend less of their lifetimes than men in the market economy.
1. Scope and Role of Distributive Principles
2. Strict Egalitarianism
3. The Difference Principle
4. Equality of Opportunity and Luck Egalitarianism
5. Welfare-Based Principles
6. Desert-Based Principles
7. Libertarian Principles
8. Feminist Principles
9. Methodology and Empirical Beliefs about Distributive Justice
Bibliography
Strict Egalitarianism
The Difference Principle
Equality of Opportunity and Luck Egalitarianism
Welfare-Based Principles
Desert-Based Principles
Libertarian Principles
Feminist Principles
Methodology and Empirical Beliefs about Distributive Justice
Further Theories and General Reference
Extended Bibliography [Supplementary Document]
Academic Resources
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
